Methods and systems for determining reservoir properties of subterranean formations with pre-existing fractures

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems are provided for evaluating subsurface earth oil and gas formations. More particularly, methods and systems are provided for determining reservoir properties such as reservoir transmissibilities and average reservoir pressures of formation layer(s) using quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic methods. The methods herein may use pressure falloff data from the introduction of an injection fluid at a pressure above the formation fracture pressure to analyze reservoir properties. The model recognizes that a new induced fracture creates additional storage volume in the formation and that a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic test in a layer may exhibit variable storage during the pressure falloff, and a change in storage may be observed at hydraulic fracture closure. From the estimated formation properties, the methods may be useful for, among other things, determining whether a pre-existing fracture is damaged and evaluating the effectiveness of a previous fracturing treatment to determine whether a formation requires restimulation.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The present invention is related to co-pending U.S. Application SerialNo. [Attorney Docket No. HES 2005-IP-018458U1] entitled “Methods andApparatus for Determining Reservoir Properties of SubterraneanFormations,” filed concurrently herewith, the entire disclosure of whichis incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND

The present invention relates to the field of oil and gas subsurfaceearth formation evaluation techniques and more particularly, to methodsand an apparatus for determining reservoir properties of subterraneanformations using quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic testmethods.

Oil and gas hydrocarbons may occupy pore spaces in subterraneanformations such as, for example, in sandstone earth formations. The porespaces are often interconnected and have a certain permeability, whichis a measure of the ability of the rock to transmit fluid flow.Hydraulic fracturing operations can be performed to increase theproduction from a well bore if the near-wellbore permeability is low orwhen damage has occurred to the near-well bore area.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process by which a fluid under high pressureis injected into the formation to create and/or extend fractures thatpenetrate into the formation. These fractures can create flow channelsto improve the near term productivity of the well. Propping agents ofvarious kinds, chemical or physical, are often used to hold thefractures open and to prevent the healing of the fractures after thefracturing pressure is released.

Fracturing treatments may encounter a variety of problems duringfracturing operations resulting in a less than optimal fracturingtreatment. Accordingly, after a fracturing treatment, it may bedesirable to evaluate the effectiveness of the fracturing treatment justperformed or to provide a baseline of reservoir properties for latercomparison and evaluation. One example of a problem occasionallyencountered in fracturing treatments is bypassed layers. That is, duringan original completion, oil or gas wells may contain layers bypassedeither intentionally or inadvertently.

The success of a hydraulic fracture treatment often depends on thequality of the candidate well selected for the treatment. Choosing agood candidate for stimulation may result in success, while choosing apoor candidate may result in economic failure. To select the bestcandidate for stimulation or restimulation, there are many parameters tobe considered. Some important parameters for hydraulic fracturinginclude formation permeability, in-situ stress distribution, reservoirfluid viscosity, skin factor, and reservoir pressure. Various methodshave been developed to determine formation properties and therebyevaluate the effectiveness of a previous stimulation treatment ortreatments.

Conventional methods designed to identify underperforming wells and torecomplete bypassed layers have been largely unsuccessful in partbecause the methods tend to oversimplify a complex multilayer problemand because they focus on commingled well performance and wellrestimulation potential without thoroughly investigating layerproperties and layer recompletion potential. The complexity of amultilayer environment increases as the number of layers with differentproperties increases. Layers with different pore pressures, fracturepressures, and permeability can coexist in the same group of layers. Asignificant detriment to investigating layer properties is a lack ofcost-effective diagnostics for determining layer permeability, pressure,and quantifying the effectiveness of a previous stimulation treatment ortreatments.

These conventional methods often suffer from a variety of drawbacksincluding a lack of desired accuracy and/or an inefficiency of thecomputational method resulting in methods that are too time consuming.Furthermore, conventional methods often lack accurate means forquantitatively determining the transmissibility of a formation.

Post-frac production logs, near-wellbore hydraulic fracture imaging withradioactive tracers, and far-field microseismic fracture imaging allsuggest that about 10% to about 40% of the layers targeted forcompletion during primary fracturing operations using limited-entryfracture treatment designs may be bypassed or ineffectively stimulated.

Quantifying bypassed layers has traditionally proved difficult because,in part, so few completed wells are imaged. Consequently, bypassed orineffectively stimulated layers may not be easily identified, and mustbe inferred from analysis of a commingled well stream, production logs,or conventional pressure-transient tests of individual layers.

One example of a conventional method is described in U.S. PatentPublication 2002/0096324 issued to Poe, which describes methods foridentifying underperforming or poorly performing producing layers forremediation or restimulation. This method, however, uses production dataanalysis of the produced well stream to infer layer properties ratherthan using a direct measurement technique. This limitation can result inpoor accuracy and further, requires allocating the total well productionto each layer based on production logs measured throughout the producinglife of the well, which may or may not be available.

Other methods of evaluating effectiveness of prior fracturing treatmentsinclude conventional pressure-transient testing, which includesdrawdown, buildup, injection/falloff testing. These methods may be usedto identify an existing fracture retaining residual width from aprevious fracture treatment or treatments, but conventional methods mayrequire days of production and pressure monitoring for each singlelayer. Consequently, in a wellbore containing multiple productivelayers, weeks to months of isolated-layer testing can be required toevaluate all layers. For many wells, the potential return does notjustify this type of investment.

Diagnostic testing in low permeability multilayer wells has beenattempted. One example of such a method is disclosed in Hopkins,. C. W.,et al., The Use of Injection/Falloff Tests and Pressure Buildup Tests toEvaluate Fracture Geometry and Post-Stimulation Well Performance in theDevonian Shales, paper SPE 23433, 22-25 (1991). This method describesseveral diagnostic techniques used in a Devonian shale well to diagnosethe existence of a pre-existing fracture(s) in multiple targeted layersover a 727 fit interval. The diagnostic tests include isolation flowtests, wellbore communication tests, nitrogen injection/falloff tests,and conventional drawdown/buildup tests.

While this diagnostic method does allow evaluation of certain reservoirproperties, it is, however, expensive and time consuming—even for arelatively simple case having only four layers. Many refracturecandidates in low permeability gas wells contain stacked lenticularsands with between 20 to 40 layers, which need to be evaluated in atimely and cost effective manner.

Another method uses a quasi-quantitative pressure transient testinterpretation method as disclosed by Huang, H., et al., A Short Shut-InTime Testing Methodfor Determining Stimulation Effectiveness in LowPermeability Gas Reservoirs, GASTIPs, 6 No. 4, 28 (Fall 2000). This“short shut-in test interpretation method” is designed to provide onlyan indication of pre-existing fracture effectiveness. The method useslog-log type curve reference points—the end of wellbore storage, thebeginning of pseudolinear flow, the end of pseudolinear flow, and thebeginning of pseudoradial flow—and the known relationships betweenpressure and system properties at those points to provide upper andlower limits of permeability and effective fracture half length.

Another method uses nitrogen slug tests as a prefracture diagnostic testin low permeability reservoirs as disclosed by Jochen, J. E., et al.,Quantifying Layered Reservoir Properties With a Novel Permeability Test,SPE 25864,12-14 (1993). This method describes a nitrogen injection testas a short small volume injection of nitrogen at a pressure less thanthe fracture initiation and propagation pressure followed by an extendedpressure falloff period. Unlike the nitrogen injection/falloff test usedby Hopkins et al., the nitrogen slug test is analyzed using slug-testtype curves and by history matching the injection and falloff pressurewith a finite-difference reservoir simulator.

Similarly, as disclosed in Craig, D. P., et al., Permeability, PorePressure, and Leakoff-Type Distributions in Rocky Mountain Basins, SPEPRODUCTION & FACILITIES, 48 (February 2005), certain types offracture-injection/falloff tests have been routinely implemented since1998 as a prefracture diagnostic method to estimate formationpermeability and average reservoir pressure. Thesefracture-injection/falloff tests, which are essentially a minifrac withreservoir properties interpreted from the pressure falloff, differ fromnitrogen slug tests in that the pressure during the injection is greaterthan the fracture initiation and propagation pressure. Afracture-injection/falloff test typically requires a low rate and smallvolume injection of treated water followed by an extended shut-inperiod. The permeability to the mobile reservoir fluid and the averagereservoir pressure may be interpreted from the pressure decline. Afracture-injection/falloff test, however, may fail to adequatelyevaluate refracture candidates, because this conventional theory doesnot account for pre-existing fractures.

Thus, conventional methods to evaluate formation properties suffer froma variety of disadvantages including a lack of the ability toquantitatively determine the reservoir transmissibility, a lack ofcost-effectiveness, computational inefficiency, and/or a lack ofaccuracy. Even among methods developed to quantitatively determine areservoir transmissibility, such methods may be impractical forevaluating formations having multiple layers such as, for example, lowpermeability stacked, lenticular reservoirs.

SUMMARY

The present invention relates to the field of oil and gas subsurfaceearth formation evaluation techniques and more particularly, to methodsand an apparatus for determining reservoir properties of subterraneanformations using quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic testmethods.

In certain embodiments, a method for determining a reservoirtransmissibility of at least one layer of a subterranean formationhaving preexisting fractures having a reservoir fluid comprises thesteps of: (a) isolating the at least one layer of the subterraneanformation to be tested; (b) introducing an injection fluid into the atleast one layer of the subterranean formation at an injection pressureexceeding the subterranean formation fracture pressure for an injectionperiod; (c) shutting in the wellbore for a shut-in period; (d) measuringpressure falloff data from the subterranean formation during theinjection period and during a subsequent shut-in period; and (e)determining quantitatively a reservoir transmissibility of the at leastone layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing the pressurefalloff data with a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.

In certain embodiments, a system for determining a reservoirtransmissibility of at least one layer of a subterranean formation byusing variable-rate pressure falloff data from the at least one layer ofthe subterranean formation measured during an injection period andduring a subsequent shut-in period comprises: a plurality of pressuresensors for measuring pressure falloff data; and a processor operable totransform the pressure falloff data to obtain equivalent constant-ratepressures and to determine quantitatively a reservoir transmissibilityof the at least one layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing thevariable-rate pressure falloff data using type-curve analysis accordingto a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.

In certain embodiments, a computer program, stored on a tangible storagemedium, for analyzing at least one downhole property comprisesexecutable instructions that cause a computer to: determinequantitatively a reservoir transmissibility of the at least one layer ofthe subterranean formation by analyzing the variable-rate pressurefalloff data with a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.

The features and advantages of the present invention will be apparent tothose skilled in the art. While numerous changes may be made by thoseskilled in the art, such changes are within the spirit of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These drawings illustrate certain aspects of some of the embodiments ofthe present invention and should not be used to limit or define theinvention.

FIG. 1 is a flow chart illustrating one embodiment of a method forquantitatively determining a reservoir transmissibility.

FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating one embodiment of a method forquantitatively determining a reservoir transmissibility.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating one embodiment of a method forquantitatively determining a reservoir transmissibility.

FIG. 4 shows an infinite-conductivity fracture at an arbitrary anglefrom the x_(D) axis.

FIG. 5 shows a log-log graph of dimensionless pressure versusdimensionless time for an infinite-conductivity cruciform fracture withδ_(L)={0, ¼, ½, and 1}.

FIG. 6 shows a finite-conductivity fracture at an arbitrary angle fromthe XD axis.

FIG. 7 shows a discretization of a cruciform fracture.

FIG. 8 log-log graph of dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless timefor an finite-conductivity cruciform fracture with δ_(L)=1 and δ_(C)=1.

FIG. 9 log-log graph of dimensionless pressure versus dimensionless timefor an finite-conductivity fractures with δ_(L)=1, δ_(C)=1, andintersecting at an angle of π/2, π/4, and π/8.

FIG. 10 shows an example fracture-injection/falloff test without apre-existing hydraulic fracture.

FIG. 11 shows an example type-curve match for afracture-injection/falloff test without a pre-existing hydraulicfracture.

FIG. 12 shows an example refracture-candidate diagnostic test with apre-existing hydraulic fracture.

FIG. 13 shows an example refracture-candidate diagnostic test log-loggraph with a damaged pre-existing hydraulic fracture.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The present invention relates to the field of oil and gas subsurfaceearth formation evaluation techniques and more particularly, to methodsand an apparatus for determining reservoir properties of subterraneanformations using quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic testmethods.

Methods of the present invention may be useful for estimating formationproperties through the use of quantitative refracture-candidatediagnostic test methods, which may use injection fluids at pressuresexceeding the formation fracture initiation and propagation pressure. Inparticular, the methods herein may be used to estimate formationproperties such as, for example, the effective fracture half-length of apre-existing fracture, the fracture conductivity of a pre-existingfracture, the reservoir transmissibility, and an average reservoirpressure. Additionally, the methods herein may be used to determinewhether a pre-existing fracture is damaged. From the estimated formationproperties, the present invention may be useful for, among other things,evaluating the effectiveness of a previous fracturing treatment todetermine whether a formation requires restimulation due to a less thanoptimal fracturing treatment result. Accordingly, the methods of thepresent invention may be used to provide a technique to determine if andwhen restimulation is desirable by quantitative application of arefracture-candidate diagnostic fracture-injection falloff test method.

Generally, the methods herein allow a relatively rapid determination ofthe effectiveness of a previous stimulation treatment or treatments ortreatments by injecting a fluid into the formation at an injectionpressure exceeding the formation fracture pressure and recording thepressure falloff data. The pressure falloff data may be analyzed todetermine certain formation properties, including if desired, thetransmissibility of the formation.

In certain embodiments, a method of determining a reservoirtransmissibility of at least one layer of a subterranean formationformation having preexisting fractures having a reservoir fluid compresthe steps of: (a) isolating the at least one layer of the subterraneanformation to be tested; (b) introducing an injection fluid into the atleast one layer of the subterranean formation at an injection pressureexceeding the subterranean formation fracture pressure for an injectionperiod; (c) shutting in the wellbore for a shut-in period; (d) measuringpressure falloff data from the subterranean formation during theinjection period and during a subsequent shut-in period; and (e)determining quantitatively a reservoir transmissibility of the at leastone layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing the pressurefalloff data with a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.

The term, “refracture-candidate diagnostic test,” as used herein refersto the computational estimates shown below in Sections I and II used toestimate certain reservoir properties, including the transmissibility ofa formation layer or multiple layers. The test recognizes that anexisting fracture retaining residual width has associated storage, and anew induced fracture creates additional storage. Consequently, afracture-injection/falloff test in a layer with a pre-existing fracturewill exhibit characteristic variable storage during the pressure falloffperiod, and the change in storage is observed at hydraulic fractureclosure. In essence, the test induces a fracture to rapidly identify apre-existing fracture retaining residual width.

The methods and models herein are extensions of and based, in part, onthe teachings of Craig, D. P., Analytical Modeling of aFracture-Injection/Falloff Sequence and the Development of aRefracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test, PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ.,College Station, Texas (2005), which is incorporated by reference hereinin full and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/813,698, filed Mar. 3,2004, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Detecting Fracture withSignificant Residual Width from Previous Treatments, which isincorporated by reference herein in full.

FIG. 1 shows an example of an implementation of the quantitativerefracture-candidate diagnostic test method implementing certain aspectsof the quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model. Method 100generally begins at step 105 for determining a reservoirtransmissibility of at least one layer of a subterranean formation. Atleast one layer of the subterranean formation is isolated in step 110.During the layer isolation step, each subterranean layer is preferablyindividually isolated one at a time for testing by the methods of thepresent invention. Multiple layers may be tested at the same time, butthis grouping of layers may introduce additional computationaluncertainty into the transmissibility estimates.

An injection fluid is introduced into the at least one layer of thesubterranean formation at an injection pressure exceeding the formationfracture pressure for an injection period (step 120). The injectionfluid may be a liquid, a gas, or a mixture thereof. In certain exemplaryembodiments, the volume of the injection fluid introduced into asubterranean layer may be roughly equivalent to the proppant-pack porevolume of an existing fracture if known or suspected to exist.Preferably, the introduction of the injection fluid is limited to arelatively short period of time as compared to the reservoir responsetime which for particular formations may range from a few seconds tominutes. In more preferred embodiments in typical applications, theintroduction of the injection fluid may be limited to less than about 5minutes. For formations having pre-existing fractures, the injectionfluid is preferably introduced in such a way so as to produce a changein the existing and created fracture volume that is at least about twicethe estimated proppant-pack pore volume. After introduction of theinjection fluid, the wellbore may be shut-in for a period of time from afew minutes to a few days depending on the length of time for thepressure falloff data to show a pressure falloff approaching thereservoir pressure.

Pressure falloff data is measured from the subterranean formation duringthe injection period and during a subsequent shut-in period (step 140).The pressure falloff data may be measured by a pressure sensor or aplurality of pressure sensors. After introduction of the injectionfluid, the wellbore may be shut-in for a period of time from about a fewhours to a few days depending on the length of time for the pressuremeasurement data to show a pressure falloff approaching the reservoirpressure. The pressure falloff data may then be analyzed according tostep 150 to determine a reservoir transmissibility of the subterraneanformation according to the quantitative refracture-candidate diagnosticmodel shown below in more detail in Sections I and II. Method 100 endsat step 225.

FIG. 2 shows an example implementation of determining quantitatively areservoir transmissibility (depicted in step 150 of Method 100). Inparticular, method 200 begins at step 205. Step 210 includes the step oftransforming the variable-rate pressure falloff data to equivalentconstant-rate pressures and using type curve analysis to match theequivalent constant-rate rate pressures to a type curve. Step 220includes the step of determining quantitatively a reservoirtransmissibility of the at least one layer of the subterranean formationby analyzing the equivalent constant-rate pressures with a quantitativerefracture-candidate diagnostic model. Method 200 ends at step 225.

One or more methods of the present invention may be implemented via aninformation handling system. For purposes of this disclosure, aninformation handling system may include any instrumentality or aggregateof instrumentalities operable to compute, classify, process, transmit,receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, manifest, detect,record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information,intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, or otherpurposes. For example, an information handling system may be a personalcomputer, a network storage device, or any other suitable device and mayvary in size, shape, performance, functionality, and price. Theinformation handling system may include random access memory (RAM), oneor more processing resources such as a central processing unit (CPU orprocessor) or hardware or software control logic, ROM, and/or othertypes of nonvolatile memory. Additional components of the informationhandling system may include one or more disk drives, one or more networkports for communication with external devices as well as various inputand output (I/O) devices, such as a keyboard, a mouse, and a videodisplay. The information handling system may also include one or morebuses operable to transmit communications between the various hardwarecomponents.

I. Quantitative Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test Model

A refracture-candidate diagnostic test is an extension of thefracture-injection/falloff theoretical model with multiplearbitrarily-oriented infinite- or finite-conductivity fracturepressure-transient solutions used to adapt the model. Thefracture-injection/falloff theoretical model is presented in U.S.application Ser. No.______ [Attorney Docket No. HES 2005-IP-018458U1]entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Determining Reservoir Properties ofSubterranean Formations,” filed concurrently herewith, the entiredisclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in full.

The test recognizes that an existing fracture retaining residual widthhas associated storage, and a new induced fracture creates additionalstorage. Consequently, a fracture-injection/falloff test in a layer witha pre-existing fracture will exhibit variable storage during thepressure falloff, and the change in storage is observed at hydraulicfracture closure. In essence the test induces a fracture to rapidlyidentify a pre-existing fracture retaining residual width.

Consider a pre-existing fracture that dilates during afracture-injection/falloff sequence, but the fracture half lengthremains constant. With constant fracture half length during theinjection and before-closure falloff, fracture volume changes are afunction of fracture width, and the before-closure storage coefficientis equivalent to the dilating-fracture storage coefficient and writtenas $\begin{matrix}{\begin{matrix}{C_{bc} = {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {2c_{f}V_{f}} + {2\frac{\mathbb{d}V_{f}}{\mathbb{d}p_{w}}}}} \\{= {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {2\frac{A_{f}}{S_{f}}}}} \\{= C_{fd}}\end{matrix}.} & (1)\end{matrix}$(The nomenclature used throughout this specification is defined below inSection VI)where S_(f) is the fracture stiffness as presented by Craig, D. P.,Analytical Modeling of a Fracture-Injection/Falloff Sequence and theDevelopment of a Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test, PhD dissertation,Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas (2005). With equivalentbefore-closure and dilated-fracture storage, a derivation similar tothat shown below in Section III results in the dimensionless pressuresolution written as $\begin{matrix}{{p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {{q_{wsD}\left\lbrack {{p_{acD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} - {p_{acD}\left( {t_{LfD} - \left( t_{e} \right)_{LfD}} \right)}} \right\rbrack} + {{p_{wsD}(0)}C_{acD}{p_{acD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}} - {\left( {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right){\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}{{p_{acD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}.}}}}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$

Alternatively, a secondary fracture can be initiated in a planedifferent from the primary fracture during the injection. With secondaryfracture creation, and assuming the volume of the primary fractureremains constant, the propagating-fracture storage coefficient iswritten as $\begin{matrix}{{C_{Lf}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {c_{f}V_{f\quad 1}} + {2\frac{A_{f\quad 2}}{S_{f\quad 2}}{\left( \frac{t_{LfD}}{\left( t_{e} \right)_{LfD}} \right)^{\alpha}.}}}} & (3)\end{matrix}$

The before-closure storage coefficient may be defined as $\begin{matrix}{{C_{Lfbc} = {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {2c_{f}V_{f\quad 1}} + {2\frac{A_{f\quad 2}}{S_{f\quad 2}}}}},} & (4)\end{matrix}$and the after-closure storage coefficient may be written asC _(Lfac) =c _(wb)+2c _(f)(V _(f1) +V _(f2))  (5)

With the new storage-coefficient definitions, thefracture-injection/falloff sequence solution with a pre-existingfracture and propagating secondary fracture is written as$\begin{matrix}{{p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {{q_{wsD}\left\lbrack {{p_{pLfD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} - {p_{pLfD}\left( {t_{LfD} - \left( t_{e} \right)_{LfD}} \right)}} \right\rbrack} - {C_{LfacD}{\int_{0}^{t_{LfD}}{{p_{LfD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}} - {\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}{{p_{pLfD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{C_{pLfD}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}} + {C_{LfbcD}{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}{{p_{LfD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}} - {\left( {C_{LfbcD} - C_{LfacD}} \right){\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}{{p_{LfD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}}}} & (6)\end{matrix}$

The limiting-case solutions for a single dilated fracture are identicalto the fracture-injection/falloff limiting-case solutions—(Eqs. 19 and20 of copending U.S. patent application, Ser. No.______[Attorney DocketNumber HES 2005-IP-018458U1]—when (t_(e))_(LfD)

t_(LfD). With secondary fracture propagation, the before-closurelimiting-case solution for (t_(e))_(LfD)

t_(LfD)<(t_(c))_(LfD) may be written asp _(wsD)(t _(LfD))=P_(wsD)(0)C _(LfbcD)p′_(LfbcD)(t _(LfD)),  (7)where p_(LfbcD) is the dimensionless pressure solution for aconstant-rate drawdown in a well producing from multiple fractures withconstant before-closure storage, which may be written in the Laplacedomain as $\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{LfbcD} = \frac{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{LfD}}{1 + {s^{2}C_{LfbcD}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{LfD}}}},} & (8)\end{matrix}$and p _(LfD) is the Laplace domain reservoir solution for productionfrom multiple arbitrarily-oriented finite- or infinite-conductivityfractures. New multiple fracture solutions are provided in below inSection IV for arbitrarily-oriented infinite-conductivity fractures andin Section V for arbitrarily-oriented finite-conductivity fractures. Thenew multiple fracture solutions allow for variable fracture half length,variable conductivity, and variable angle of separation betweenfractures.

The after-closure limiting-case solution with secondary fracturepropagation when t_(LfD)

(t_(c))_(LfD)

(t_(e))_(LfD) is written as $\begin{matrix}{{p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {\begin{bmatrix}{{{p_{wsD}(0)}C_{LfbcD}} -} \\{{p_{wsD}\left( \left( t_{c} \right)_{LfD} \right)}\left( {C_{LfbcD} - C_{LfacD}} \right)}\end{bmatrix}{p_{LfacD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}}} & (9)\end{matrix}$where p_(LfacD) is the dimensionless pressure solution for aconstant-rate drawdown in a well producing from multiple fractures withconstant after-closure storage, which may be written in the Laplacedomain as $\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{LfbcD} = {\frac{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{LfD}}{1 + {s^{2}C_{LfacD}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{LfD}}}.}} & (10)\end{matrix}$

The limiting-case solutions are slug-test solutions, which suggest thata refracture-candidate diagnostic test may be analyzed as a slug testprovided the injection time is short relative to the reservoir response.

Consequently, a refracture-candidate diagnostic test may use thefollowing in certain embodiments:

-   -   Isolate a layer to be tested.    -   Inject liquid or gas at a pressure exceeding fracture initiation        and propagation pressure. In certain embodiments, the injected        volume may be roughly equivalent to the proppant-pack pore        volume of an existing fracture if known or suspected to exist.        In certain embodiments, the injection time may be limited to a        few minutes.    -   Shut-in and record pressure falloff data. In certain        embodiments, the measurement period may be several hours.

A qualitative interpretation may use the following steps:

-   -   Identify hydraulic fracture closure during the pressure falloff        using methods such as those disclosed in Craig, D. P. et al.,        Permeability, Pore Pressure, and Leakoff-Type Distributions in        Rocky Mountain Basins, SPE PRODUCTION & FACILITIES, 48 (February        2005).

The time at the end of pumping, t_(ne), becomes the reference time zero,Δt=0. Calculate the shut-in time relative to the end of pumping asΔt=t−t _(ne)  (11)

In some cases, t_(ne), is very small relative to t and Δt=t. As a personof ordinary skill in the art with the benefit of this disclosure willappreciate, t_(ne) may be taken as zero approximately zero so as toapproximate Δt. Thus, the term At as used herein includesimplementations where t_(ne) is assumed to be zero or approximatelyzero. For a slightly-compressible fluid injection in a reservoircontaining a compressible fluid, or a compressible fluid injection in areservoir containing a compressible fluid, use the compressiblereservoir fluid properties and calculate adjusted time as$\begin{matrix}{t_{a} = {\left( {\mu\quad c_{t}} \right)_{p_{0}}{\int_{0}^{\Delta\quad t}\frac{{\mathbb{d}\quad\Delta}\quad t}{\left( {\mu\quad c_{t}} \right)_{w}}}}} & (12)\end{matrix}$where pseudotime may be defined as $\begin{matrix}{t_{p} = {\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\mathbb{d}t}{\left( {\mu\quad c_{t}} \right)_{w}}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$and adjusted time or normalized pseudotime may be defined as$\begin{matrix}{t_{a} = {\left( {\mu\quad c_{t}} \right)_{re}{\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\mathbb{d}t}{\mu_{w}c_{t}}}}} & (14)\end{matrix}$where the subscript ‘re’ refers to an arbitrary reference conditionselected for convenience.

-   The pressure difference for a slightly-compressible fluid injection    into a reservoir containing a slightly compressible fluid may be    calculated as    p(t)=p _(w)(t)−p_(i),  (15)    or for a slightly-compressible fluid injection in a reservoir    containing a compressible fluid, or a compressible fluid injection    in a reservoir containing a compressible fluid, use the compressible    reservoir fluid properties and calculate the adjusted pseudopressure    difference as p _(a)(t)=p _(aw)(t)−p_(ai),  (16)    where $\begin{matrix}    {p_{a} = {\left( \frac{\mu\quad z}{p} \right)_{p_{i}}{\int_{0}^{p}{\frac{p{\mathbb{d}p}}{\mu\quad z}.}}}} & (17)    \end{matrix}$    where pseudopressure may be defined as $\begin{matrix}    {p_{a} = {\int_{0}^{p}\frac{p{\mathbb{d}p}}{\mu\quad z}}} & (18)    \end{matrix}$    and adjusted pseudopressure or normalized pseudopressure may be    defined as $\begin{matrix}    {p_{a} = {\left( \frac{\mu\quad z}{p} \right)_{re}{\int_{0}^{p}\frac{p{\mathbb{d}p}}{\mu\quad z}}}} & (19)    \end{matrix}$    where the subscript ‘re’ refers to an arbitrary reference condition    selected for convenience.

The reference conditions in the adjusted pseudopressure and adjustedpseudotime definitions are arbitrary and different forms of the solutioncan be derived by simply changing the normalizing reference conditions.

-   Calculate the pressure-derivative plotting function as    $\begin{matrix}    {{{\Delta\quad p^{\prime}} = {\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad\Delta\quad t} \right)} = {\Delta\quad p\quad\Delta\quad t}}},} & (20) \\    {or} & \quad \\    {{{\Delta\quad p_{a}^{\prime}} = {\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p_{a}} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad t_{a}} \right)} = {\Delta\quad p_{a}t_{a}}}},} & (21)    \end{matrix}$-   Transform the recorded variable-rate pressure falloff data to an    equivalent pressure if the rate were constant by integrating the    pressure difference with respect to time, which may be written for a    slightly compressible fluid as $\begin{matrix}    {{I\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)} = {\int_{0}^{\Delta\quad t}{\left\lbrack {{p_{w}(\tau)} - p_{i}} \right\rbrack{\mathbb{d}\tau}}}} & (22)    \end{matrix}$    or for a slightly-compressible fluid injected in a reservoir    containing a compressible fluid, or a compressible fluid injection    in a reservoir containing a compressible fluid, the    pressure-plotting fuinction may be calculated as $\begin{matrix}    {{I\left( {\Delta\quad p_{a}} \right)} = {\int_{0}^{t_{a}}{\Delta\quad p_{a}{{\mathbb{d}t_{a}}.}}}} & (23)    \end{matrix}$    -   Calculate the pressure-derivative plotting function as        $\begin{matrix}        {{{\Delta\quad p^{\prime}} = {\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad\Delta\quad t} \right)} = {\Delta\quad p\quad\Delta\quad t}}},} & (24) \\        {or} & \quad \\        {{{\Delta\quad p_{a}^{\prime}} = {\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p_{a}} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad t_{a}} \right)} = {\Delta\quad p_{a}t_{a}}}},} & (25)        \end{matrix}$    -   Prepare a log-log graph of I(Δp) versus Δt or I(Δp_(a)) versus        t_(a).    -   Prepare a log-log graph of Δp′ versus Δt or ΔP_(a)′ versus        t_(a).    -   Examine the storage behavior before and after closure.        II. Analysis and Interpretation of Data Generally

A change in the magnitude of storage at fracture closure suggests afracture retaining residual width exists. When the storage decreases, anexisting fracture is nondamaged. Conversely, a damaged fracture, or afracture exhibiting choked-fracture skin, is indicated by apparentincrease in the storage coefficient.

Quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic interpretation usestype-curve matching, or if pseudoradial flow is observed, after-closureanalysis as presented in Gu, H. et al., Formation PermeabilityDetermination Using Impulse-Fracture Injection, SPE 25425 (1993) orAbousleiman, Y., Cheng, A. H-D. and Gu, H., Formation PermeabilityDetermination by Micro or Mini-Hydraulic Fracturing, J. OF ENERGYRESOURCES TECHNOLOGY, 116, No. 6, 104 (June 1994). After-closureanalysis is preferable because it does not require knowledge of fracturehalf length to calculate transmissibility. However, pseudoradial flow isunlikely to be observed during a relatively short pressure falloff, andtype-curve matching may be necessary. From a pressure match point on aconstant-rate type curve with constant before-closure storage,transmissibility may be calculated in field units as $\begin{matrix}{\frac{kh}{\mu} = {141.2(24){p_{wsD}(0)}{{C_{Lfbc}\left( {p_{0} - p_{i}} \right)}\left\lbrack \frac{p_{LfbcD}\left( t_{D} \right)}{\int_{0}^{\Delta\quad t}{\left\lbrack {{p_{w}(\tau)} - p_{i}} \right\rbrack{\mathbb{d}t}}} \right\rbrack}_{M}}} & (26)\end{matrix}$or from an after-closure pressure match point using a variable-storagetype curve $\begin{matrix}{\frac{kh}{\mu} = {141.2{(24)\begin{bmatrix}{{p_{wsD}(0)}C_{{Lfbc} -}} \\{{P_{wsD}\left( \left( t_{c} \right)_{LfD} \right)}\left\lbrack {C_{Lfbc} - C_{Lfbc}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}}{\left( {p_{0} - p_{i}} \right)\left\lbrack \frac{p_{LfacD}\left( t_{D} \right)}{\int_{0}^{\Delta\quad t}{\left\lbrack {{p_{w}(\tau)} - p_{i}} \right\rbrack{\mathbb{d}\tau}}} \right\rbrack}_{M}}} & (27)\end{matrix}$

Quantitative interpretation has two limitations. First, the averagereservoir pressure must be known for accurate equivalent constant-ratepressure and pressure derivative calculations, Eqs. 22-25. Second, bothprimary and secondary fracture half lengths are required to calculatetransmissibility. Assuming the secondary fracture half length can beestimated by imaging or analytical methods as presented in Valkó, P. P.and Economides, M. J., Fluid-Leakoff Delineation in High PermeabilityFracturing, SPE PRODUCTION & FACILITIES, 117 (May 1999), the primaryfracture half length is calculated from the type curve match,L_(f1)=L_(f2)/δ_(L). With both fracture half lengths known, the before-and after-closure storage coefficients can be calculated as in Craig, D.P., Analytical Modeling of a Fracture-Injection/Falloff Sequence and theDevelopment of a Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test, PhD dissertation,Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas (2005) and the transmissibilityestimated.

III. Theoretical Model A—Fracture-Injection/Falloff Solution in aReservoir Without a Pre-Existing Fracture

Assume a slightly compressible fluid fills the wellbore and fracture andis injected at a constant rate and at a pressure sufficient to create anew hydraulic fracture or dilate an existing fracture. A mass balanceduring a fracture injection may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{m_{in}}{\overset{︷}{q_{w}B\quad\rho}} - \overset{m_{out}}{\overset{︷}{q_{\ell}B_{r}\rho_{r}}}} = \overset{Storage}{\overset{︷}{{V_{w\quad b}\frac{\mathbb{d}\rho_{w\quad b}}{\mathbb{d}t}} + {2\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {V_{f}\rho_{f}} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t}}}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}1} \right)\end{matrix}$where q_(l) is the fluid leakoff rate into the reservoir from thefracture, q_(l)=q_(sf), and V_(f)is the fracture volume.

A material balance equation may be written assuming a constant density,ρ=ρ_(wb)=ρ_(f)=ρ_(r), and a constant formation volume factor, B=B_(r),as $\begin{matrix}{q_{s\quad f} = {q_{w} - {\frac{1}{B}\left( {{c_{w\quad b}V_{w\quad b}} + {2\quad c_{f}V_{f}} + {2\frac{\mathbb{d}V_{f}}{\mathbb{d}p_{w}}}} \right){\frac{\mathbb{d}p_{w}}{\mathbb{d}t}.}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}2} \right)\end{matrix}$

During a constant rate injection with changing fracture length andwidth, the fracture volume may be written asV _(f)(p _(w)(t))=h _(f) L(p _(w)(t))ŵ(p _(w)(t))  (A-3)and the propagating-fracture storage coefficient may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{C_{p\quad f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)} = {{c_{w\quad b}V_{wb}} + {2\quad c_{f}{V_{f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}} + {2{\frac{\mathbb{d}{V_{f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}}{\mathbb{d}p_{w}}.}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}4} \right)\end{matrix}$

The dimensionless wellbore pressure for a fracture-injection/falloff maybe written as $\begin{matrix}{{{p_{w\quad s\quad D}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = \frac{{p_{w}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} - p_{i}}{p_{0} - p_{i}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}5} \right)\end{matrix}$where p_(i) is the initial reservoir pressure and p₀ is an arbitraryreference pressure. At time zero, the wellbore pressure is increased tothe “opening” pressure, p_(w0), which is generally set equal to p₀, andthe dimensionless wellbore pressure at time zero may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{p_{w\quad s\quad D}(0)} = {\frac{p_{w\quad 0} - p_{i}}{p_{0} - p_{i}}.}} & \left( {A\text{-}6} \right)\end{matrix}$

Define dimensionless time as $\begin{matrix}{{t_{LfD} = \frac{k\quad t}{\phi\quad\mu\quad c_{t}L_{f}^{2}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}7} \right)\end{matrix}$where L_(f) is the fracture half-length at the end of pumping. Thedimensionless reservoir flow rate may be defined as $\begin{matrix}{{q_{s\quad D} = \frac{q_{s\quad f}B\quad\mu}{2\quad \quad k\quad{h\left( {p_{0} - p_{i}} \right)}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}8} \right)\end{matrix}$and the dimensionless well flow rate may be defined as $\begin{matrix}{{q_{w\quad s\quad D} = \frac{q_{w}B\quad\mu}{2\quad \quad k\quad{h\left( {p_{0} - p_{i}} \right)}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}9} \right)\end{matrix}$where q_(w) is the well injection rate.

With dimensionless variables, the material balance equation for apropagating fracture during injection may be written as $\begin{matrix}{q_{s\quad D} = {q_{w\quad s\quad D} - {\frac{C_{p\quad f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}{2\quad \quad\phi\quad c_{t}h\quad L_{f}^{2}}{\frac{\mathbb{d}p_{w\quad s\quad D}}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}.}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}10} \right)\end{matrix}$

Define a dimensionless fracture storage coefficient as $\begin{matrix}{{C_{f\quad D} = \frac{C_{p\quad f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}{2\quad \quad\phi\quad c_{t}h\quad L_{f}^{2}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}11} \right)\end{matrix}$

and the dimensionless material balance equation during an injection at apressure sufficient to create and extend a hydraulic fracture may bewritten as $\begin{matrix}{q_{sD} = {q_{wsD} - {{C_{pfD}\left( {p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} \right)}{\frac{\mathbb{d}p_{wsD}}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}.}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}12} \right)\end{matrix}$

Using the technique of Correa and Ramey as disclosed in Correa, A. C.and Ramey, H. J., Jr., Combined Effects of Shut-In and Production:Solution With a New Inner Boundary Condition, SPE 15579 (1986) andCorrea, A. C. and Ramey, H. J., Jr., A Method for Pressure BuildupAnalysis of Drillstem Tests, SPE 16802 (1987), a material balanceequation valid at all times for a fracture-injection/falloff sequencewith fracture creation and extension and constant after-closure storagemay be written as $\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{q_{sD} = {q_{wsD} - {U_{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}q_{wsD}} - {{C_{pfD}\left( {p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} \right)}\frac{\mathbb{d}p_{wsD}}{{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}\quad}} +}} \\{{{U_{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}\left\lbrack {{C_{pfD}\left( {p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} \right)} - C_{bcD}} \right\rbrack}\frac{\mathbb{d}p_{wsD}}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}} +} \\{{U_{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}\left\lbrack {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right\rbrack}\frac{\mathbb{d}p_{wsD}}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}\end{matrix} & \left( {A\text{-}13} \right)\end{matrix}$where the unit step function is defined as $\begin{matrix}{U_{a} = \left\{ {\begin{matrix}{0,{t < a}} \\{1,{t > a}}\end{matrix}.} \right.} & \left( {A\text{-}14} \right)\end{matrix}$

The Laplace transform of the material balance equation for an injectionwith fracture creation and extension is written after expanding andsimplifying as $\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{sD} = {\frac{q_{wsD}}{s} - {q_{wsD}\frac{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {s{(t_{e})}}_{LfD}}}{s}} -}} \\{{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{{LfD}_{e}^{- {st}}{LfD}}}{{C_{pfD}\left( {p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}} -} \\{{{sC}_{acD}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{wsD}} + {{p_{wsD}(0)}C_{acD}} +} \\{{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{{LfD}_{e}^{- {st}}{LfD}}}{C_{bcD}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}} -} \\{\left( {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right){\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{{LfD}_{e}^{- {st}}{LfD}}}{{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}}}\end{matrix} & \left( {A\text{-}15} \right)\end{matrix}$

With fracture half length increasing during the injection, adimensionless pressure solution may be required for both a propagatingand fixed fracture half-length. A dimensionless pressure solution maydeveloped by integrating the line-source solution, which may be writtenas $\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{\Delta\quad p}}_{ls} = {\frac{\overset{\sim}{q}\mu}{2\pi\quad{ks}}{K_{0}\left( {r_{D}\sqrt{u}} \right)}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}16} \right)\end{matrix}$from x_(w)− L(s) and x_(w)+ L(s) with respect to x′_(w) where μ=sf (s),and f(s)=1 for a single-porosity reservoir. Here, it is assumed that thefracture half length may be written as a fuiction of the Laplacevariable, s, only. In terms of dimensionless variables,x′_(wD)=x′_(w)/L_(f) and dx′_(w)=L_(f)dx′_(wD), the line-source solutionis integrated from x_(wD)− L _(fD)(s) to x_(wD)+ L _(fD)(s), which maybe written as $\begin{matrix}{\overset{\_}{\Delta\quad p} = {\frac{\overset{\sim}{q}\mu\quad L_{f}}{2\pi\quad{ks}}{\int_{x_{wD} - {{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}}^{x_{wD} + {{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\left( {x_{D} - x_{wD}^{\prime}} \right)^{2} + \left( {y_{D} - y_{wD}} \right)^{2}}} \right\rbrack}\quad{\mathbb{d}x_{wD}^{\prime}}}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}17} \right)\end{matrix}$

Assuming that the well center is at the origin, x wD =YwD =0,$\begin{matrix}{\overset{\_}{\Delta\quad p} = {\frac{\overset{\sim}{q}\mu\quad L_{f}}{2\pi\quad{ks}}{\int_{- {{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}}^{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\left( {x_{D} - x_{wD}^{\prime}} \right)^{2} + \left( y_{D} \right)^{2}}}\quad \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}x_{wD}^{\prime}}}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}18} \right)\end{matrix}$

Assuming constant flux, the flow rate in the Laplace domain may bewritten asq (s)=2 qh L (s),   (A-19)and the plane-source solution may be written in dimensionless terms as$\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{D} = {\frac{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{D}(s)}{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}(s)}\frac{1}{2s}{\int_{- {{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}}^{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\left( {x_{D} - \alpha} \right)^{2} + \left( y_{D} \right)^{2}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}},{where}} & \left( {A\text{-}20} \right) \\{{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{D} = \frac{2\pi\quad{kh}\overset{\_}{\Delta\quad p}}{\overset{\_}{q}\mu}},} & \left( {A\text{-}21} \right) \\{{{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}(s)} = \frac{L(s)}{L_{f}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}22} \right)\end{matrix}$and defining the total flow rate as q _(t)(s), the dimensionless flowrate may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{D}(s)} = {\frac{\overset{\_}{q}(s)}{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{t}(s)}.}} & \left( {A\text{-}23} \right)\end{matrix}$

It may be assumed that the total flow rate increases proportionatelywith respect to increased fracture half-length such that q _(D)(s)=1.The solution is evaluated in the plane of the fracture, and aftersimplifying the integral using the identity of Ozkan and Raghavan asdisclosed in Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R., New Solutions forWell-Test-Analysis Problems: Part 2—Computational Considerations andApplications, SPEFE, 369 (September 1991), the dimensionlessuniform-flux solution in the Laplace domain for a variable fracturehalf-length may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{pfD} = {\frac{1}{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}(s)}{\frac{1}{2s\sqrt{u}}\left\lbrack {{\int_{0}^{\sqrt{u}{({{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}} + x_{D}})}}{{K_{0}\lbrack z\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}z}}} + {\int_{0}^{\sqrt{u}{({{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}} - x_{D}})}}{{K_{0}\lbrack z\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}z}}}} \right\rbrack}}} & \left( {A\text{-}24} \right)\end{matrix}$and the infinite conductivity solution may be obtained by evaluating theuniform-flux solution at x_(D)=0.732 L _(fD)(s) and may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{pfD} = {\frac{1}{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}(s)}{\frac{1}{2s\sqrt{u}}\left\lbrack \quad{{\int_{0}^{\sqrt{u}{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}{({1 + 0.732})}}{{K_{0}\lbrack z\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}z}}} + {\int_{0}^{\sqrt{u}{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}{(s)}}{({1 - 0.732})}}{{K_{0}\lbrack z\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}z}}}} \right\rbrack}}} & \left( {A\text{-}25} \right)\end{matrix}$

The Laplace domain dimensionless fracture half-length varies between 0and 1 during fracture propagation, and using a power-model approximationas shown in Nolte, K. G., Determination of Fracture Parameters FromFracturing Pressure Decline, SPE 8341 (1979), the Laplace domaindimensionless fracture half-length may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}(s)} = {\frac{\overset{\_}{L}(s)}{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{f}\left( s_{e} \right)} = \left( \frac{s_{e}}{s} \right)^{\alpha}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}26} \right)\end{matrix}$where s_(e) is the Laplace domain variable at the end of pumping. TheLaplace domain dimensionless fracture half length may be written duringpropagation and closure as $\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{L}}_{fD}(s)} = \left\{ {\begin{matrix}\left( \frac{s_{e}}{s} \right)^{\alpha} & {s_{e} < s} \\1 & {s_{e} \geq s}\end{matrix}.} \right.} & \left( {A\text{-}27} \right)\end{matrix}$where the power-model exponent ranges from α=½ for a low efficiency(high leakoff) fracture and α=1 for a high efficiency (low leakoff)fracture.

During the before-closure and after-closure period—when the fracturehalf-length is unchanging—the dimensionless reservoir pressure solutionfor an infinite conductivity fracture in the Laplace domain may bewritten as $\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{fD} = {{\frac{1}{2s\sqrt{u}}\left\lbrack {{\int_{0}^{\sqrt{u}{({1 + 0.732})}}{{K_{0}\lbrack z\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}z}}} + {\int_{0}^{\sqrt{u}{({1 - 0.732})}}{{K_{0}\lbrack z\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}z}}}} \right\rbrack}.}} & \left( {A\text{-}28} \right)\end{matrix}$

The two different reservoir models, one for a propagating fracture andone for a fixed-length fracture, may be superposed to develop adimensionless wellbore pressure solution by writing the superpositionintegrals as $\begin{matrix}{{p_{wsD} = {{\int_{0}^{t_{LfD}}{{q_{pfD}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}\frac{\mathbb{d}{p_{pfD}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}} + {\int_{0}^{t_{LfD}}{{q_{fD}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}\frac{\mathbb{d}{p_{fD}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}29} \right)\end{matrix}$where q_(pfD)(t_(LfD)) is the dimensionless flow rate for thepropagating fracture model, and q_(fD)(t_(LfD)) is the dimensionlessflow rate with a fixed fracture half-length model used during thebefore-closure and after-closure falloff period. The initial conditionin the fracture and reservoir is a constant initial pressure, p_(D)(t_(LfD))=p_(pfD)(t_(LfD) )=p_(fD)(t_(LfD))=0, and with the initialcondition, the Laplace transform of the superposition integral iswritten asp _(wsD) = q _(pηD) s p _(pηD) + q _(fD) s p _(fD)  (A-30)

The Laplace domain dimensionless material balance equation may be splitinto injection and falloff parts by writing asq _(sD) = q _(pfD) + q _(fD),   (A-31)where the dimensionless reservoir flow rate during fracture propagationmay be written as $\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{pfD} = {\frac{q_{wsD}}{s} - {q_{wsD}\frac{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {s{(t_{e})}}_{LfD}}}{s}} - {\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {st}_{LfD}}{C_{pfD}\left( {p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}32} \right)\end{matrix}$and the dimensionless before-closure and after-closure fracture flowrate may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{fD} = {\begin{bmatrix}{{{p_{wD}(0)}C_{acD}} - {{sC}_{acD}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{wsD}} + C_{bcD}} \\{{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {st}_{LfD}}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}} - \left( {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right)} \\{\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {st}_{LfD}}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}}\end{bmatrix}.}} & \left( {A\text{-}33} \right)\end{matrix}$

Using the superposition principle to develop a solution requires thatthe pressure-dependent dimensionless propagating-fracture storagecoefficient be written as a function of time only. Let fracturepropagation be modeled by a power model and written as $\begin{matrix}{\frac{A(t)}{A_{f}} = {\frac{h_{f}{L(t)}}{h_{f}L_{f}} = {\left( \frac{t}{t_{e}} \right)^{\alpha}.}}} & \left( {A\text{-}34} \right)\end{matrix}$

Fracture volume as a function of time may be written asV _(f)(p _(w)(t))=h _(f) L(p _(w)(t))ŵ(p _(w)(t))  (A-35)which, using the power model, may also be written as $\begin{matrix}{{V_{f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)} = {h_{f}L_{f}\frac{\left( {{p_{w}(t)} - p_{c}} \right)}{S_{f}}{\left( \frac{t}{t_{e}} \right)^{\alpha}.}}} & \left( {A\text{-}36} \right)\end{matrix}$

The derivative of fracture volume with respect to wellbore pressure maybe written as $\begin{matrix}{\frac{\mathbb{d}{V_{f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}}{\mathbb{d}p_{w}} = {\frac{h_{f}L_{f}}{S_{f}}{\left( \frac{t}{t_{e}} \right)^{\alpha}.}}} & \left( {A\text{-}37} \right)\end{matrix}$

Recall the propagating-fracture storage coefficient may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{{C_{pf}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)} = {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {2c_{f}{V_{f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}} + {2\frac{\mathbb{d}{V_{f}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)}}{\mathbb{d}p_{w}}}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}38} \right)\end{matrix}$which, with power-model fracture propagation included, may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{C_{pf}\left( {p_{w}(t)} \right)} = {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {2\frac{h_{f}L_{f}}{S_{f}}\left( \frac{t}{t_{e}} \right)^{\alpha}{\left( {{c_{f}p_{n}} + 1} \right).}}}} & \left( {A\text{-}39} \right)\end{matrix}$

As noted by Hagoort, J., Waterflood-induced hydraulic fracturing, PhDThesis, Delft Tech. Univ. (1981), Koning, E. J. L. and Niko, H.,Fractured Water-Injection Wells: A Pressure Falloff Test for DeterminingFracturing Dimensions, SPE 14458 (1985), Koning, E. J. L., WaterfloodingUnder Fracturing Conditions, PhD Thesis, Delft Technical University(1988), van den Hoek, P. J., Pressure Transient Analysis in FracturedProduced Water Injection Wells, SPE 77946 (2002), and van den Hoek, P.J., A Novel Methodology to Derive the Dimensions and Degree ofContainment of Waterflood-Induced Fractures From Pressure TransientAnalysis, SPE 84289 (2003), c_(f)p_(n)(t)

1, and the propagating-fracture storage coefficient may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{{C_{pf}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {{c_{wb}V_{wb}} + {2\frac{A_{f}}{S_{f}}\left( \frac{t_{LfD}}{\left( t_{e} \right)_{LfD}} \right)^{\alpha}}}},} & \left( {A\text{-}40} \right)\end{matrix}$which is not a function of pressure and allows the superpositionprinciple to be used to develop a solution.

Combining the material balance equations and superposition integralsresults in $\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{wsD} = {{q_{wsD}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{pfD}} - {q_{wsD}{\overset{\_}{p}}_{pfD}{\mathbb{e}}^{{- {s{(t_{e})}}}{LfD}}} -}} \\{{C_{acD}\left\lbrack {s{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{fD}\left( {{s{\overset{\_}{p}}_{wsD}} - {p_{wD}(0)}} \right)}} \right\rbrack} -} \\{{s{\overset{\_}{p}}_{pfD}{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}{LfD}}{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {st}_{LfD}}{C_{pfD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}}} +} \\{s{\overset{\_}{p}}_{fD}C_{bcD}{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {st}_{LfD}}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d} -}}}} \\{s{\overset{\_}{p}}_{fD}{\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}{{{\mathbb{e}}^{- {st}_{LfD}}\left\lbrack {c_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right\rbrack}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\mathbb{d}t_{LfD}}}}}\end{matrix} & \left( {A\text{-}41} \right)\end{matrix}$and after inverting to the time domain, the fracture-injection/falloffsolution for the case of a propagating fracture, constant before-closurestorage, and constant after-closure storage may be written as$\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {{q_{wsD}\left\lbrack {{p_{pfD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} - {p_{pfD}\left( {t_{LfD} - \left( t_{e} \right)_{LfD}} \right)}} \right\rbrack} -}} \\{{C_{acD}{\int_{0}^{t_{LfD}}{{p_{fD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}} -} \\{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}{LfD}}{{p_{pfD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}C_{pfD}}} \\{{\left( \tau_{D} \right){p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}} +} \\{{C_{bcD}{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}{{p_{fD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}} -} \\{\left( {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right){\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}p_{fD}^{\prime}}} \\{\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right){p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}\end{matrix} & \left( {A\text{-}42} \right)\end{matrix}$

Limiting-case solutions may be developed by considering the integralterm containing propagating-fracture storage. When, t_(LfD)

(t_(e))_(LfD), the propagating-fracture solution derivative may bewritten asp′ _(pfD)(t _(LfD)−τ_(D))≅p′ _(pfD)(t _(LfD)),  (A-43)and the fracture solution derivative may also be approximated asp′ _(fD)(t _(LfD)−τ_(D))≅p′ _(fD)(t _(LfD))  (A-44)

The definition of the dimensionless propagating-fracture solution statesthat when t_(LηD)>(t_(e))_(LfD), the propagating-fracture and fracturesolution are equal, and p′_(pfD)(t_(LfD)=p′) _(fD)(t_(LfD)).Consequently, for t_(LfD)

(t_(e))_(LfD), the dimensionless wellbore pressure solution may bewritten as $\begin{matrix}{{p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = \begin{bmatrix}{{p_{fD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}{\int_{0}^{{(t_{e})}_{LfD}}\left\lbrack {C_{bcD} - {C_{fD}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}} \right\rbrack}} \\{{{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}} - {C_{acD}{\int_{0}^{t_{LfD}}{p_{fD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}}}} \\{{{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}} - \left( {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right)} \\{\int_{0}^{{(t_{c})}_{LfD}}{{p_{fD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}\end{bmatrix}} & \left( {A\text{-}45} \right)\end{matrix}$

The before-closure storage coefficient is by definition always greaterthan the propagating-fracture storage coefficient, and the difference ofthe two coefficients cannot be zero unless the fracture half-length iscreated instantaneously. However, the difference is also relativelysmall when compared to C_(bcD) or C_(acD), and when the dimensionlesstime of injection is short and t_(LfD)>(t_(e))_(LfD), the integral termcontaining the propagating-fracture storage coefficient becomesnegligibly small.

Thus, with a short dimensionless time of injection and (t_(e))_(LfD)

t_(LfD)<(t_(c))_(LfD), the limiting-case before-closure dimensionlesswellbore pressure solution may be written as $\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{{p_{wsD}\left( t_{LfD} \right)} = {{{p_{wsD}(0)}C_{acD}{p_{acD}^{\prime}\left( t_{LfD} \right)}} -}} \\{\left( {C_{bcD} - C_{acD}} \right){\int_{0}^{t_{LfD}}{p_{acD}^{\prime}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right)}}} \\{{p_{wsD}^{\prime}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}\end{matrix} & \left( {A\text{-}46} \right)\end{matrix}$which may be simplified in the Laplace domain and inverted back to thetime domain to obtain the before-closure limiting-case dimensionlesswellbore pressure solution written asp _(wsD)(t _(LfD))=p _(wsD)(0)C _(bcD) p′ _(bcD)(t_(LfD) ),  (A-47)which is the slug test solution for a hydraulically fractured well withconstant before-closure storage.

When the dimensionless time of injection is short and t_(LfD)

(t_(c))_(LfD)

(t_(e))_(LfD), the fracture solution derivative may be approximated asp′ _(fD)(t _(LfD)−τ_(D))≅p′ _(fD)(t _(LfD)),  (A-48)and with t_(LfD)

(t_(c))_(LfD) and p′_(acD)(t_(LfD)−τ_(D))≅p′_(acD)(t_(LfD)), thedimensionless wellbore pressure solution may written asp _(wsD)(t _(LfD))=[p _(wsD)(0)C _(bcD) −p _(wsD)((t _(c))_(LfD))(C_(bcD) −C _(acD))]p′ _(acD)(t _(LfD))  (A-49)IV. Theoretical Model B—Analytical Pressure-Transient Solution for aWell Containing Multiple Infinite-Conductivity Yertical Fractures in anInfinite Slab Reservoir

FIG. 4 illustrates a vertical fracture at an arbitrary angle, θ, fromthe x_(D)-axis. The uniform-flux plane-source solution assuming anisotropic reservoir may be written in the Laplace domain as presented inCraig, D. P., Analytical Modeling of a Fracture-Injection/FalloffSequence and the Development of a Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test,PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas (2005) as$\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}\quad}_{D} = {\frac{1}{2{sL}_{fD}}{\int_{- L_{fD}}^{L_{fD}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\left( {{\hat{x}}_{D} - \alpha} \right)^{2} + \left( {\hat{y}}_{D} \right)^{2}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}1} \right)\end{matrix}$where dimensionless variables are defined asr _(D) √{square root over (x_(D) ²+y_(D) ²)},   (B-2)x _(D) =r _(D) cosθ_(r),  (B-3)y _(D) =r _(D) sinθ_(r),  (B-4){circumflex over (x)} _(D) =x _(D)cosθ_(f) +y _(D)sinθ_(f),  (B-5)ŷ _(D) =y _(D)cosθ_(f) −x _(D)sinθ_(f),  (B-6)and θ_(f) is the angle between the fracture and the x_(D)-axis, (r_(D),θ_(r)) are the polar coordinates of a point (x_(D),y_(D)), and(α,θ_(f))are the polar coordinates of a point along the fracture asdisclosed in Ozkan, E., Yildiz, T., and Kuchuk, F. J., TransientPressure Behavior of Duallateral Wells, SPE 38760 (1997). Combining Eqs.B-3 through B-6 results in{circumflex over (x)} _(D) =r _(D)cos(θ_(r)−θ_(f)),  (B-7)andŷ _(D) =r _(D)cos(θ_(r)−θ_(f))  (B-8)

Consequently, the Laplace domain plane-source solution for a fracturerotated by an angle θ_(f)from a point (r_(D), θ_(r)) may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\overset{\_}{p}\quad}_{D} = {\frac{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{D}}{2{sL}_{fD}}{\int_{- L_{fD}}^{L_{fD}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{r_{D}{\cos\left( {\theta_{r} - \theta_{f}} \right)}} - \alpha} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{r_{D}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{r} - \theta_{f}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}9} \right)\end{matrix}$

For a well containing f fractures connected at the well bore, the totalflow rate from the well assuming all production is through the fracturesmay be written as $\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}q_{iD}} = 1},} & \left( {B\text{-}10} \right)\end{matrix}$where q_(iD) is the dimensionless flow rate for the i^(th)-fracturedefined as $\begin{matrix}{{q_{iD} = {\frac{q_{i}}{q_{w}} = \frac{q_{i}}{\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{n_{f}}q_{k}}}},} & \left( {B\text{-}11} \right)\end{matrix}$and q_(i) is the flow rate from the i^(th)-fracture.

The dimensionless pressure solution is obtained by superposing allfractures as disclosed in Raghavan, R., Chen, C-C, and Agarwal, B., AnAnalysis of Horizontal Wells Intercepted by Multiple Fractures, SPEJ 235(September 1997) and written using the superposition integral as$\begin{matrix}{{p_{LfD} = {\left( p_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\int_{0}^{LfD}{{q_{iD}\left( \tau_{D} \right)}\left( p_{D}^{\prime} \right)_{\ell\quad i}\left( {t_{LfD} - \tau_{D}} \right){\mathbb{d}\tau_{D}}}}}}},{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{f}} & \left( {B\text{-}12} \right)\end{matrix}$where the pressure derivative accounts for the effects of fracture i onfracture l.

The Laplace transform of the dimensionless rate equation may be writtenas $\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}} = \frac{1}{s}},} & \left( {B\text{-}13} \right)\end{matrix}$and with the initial condition, P_(D) (t_(LfD)=0)=0, the Laplacetransform of the dimensionless pressure solution may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{s{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{D} \right)}_{\ell\quad i}}}},{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{f},} & \left( {B\text{-}14} \right)\end{matrix}$where ( p _(D))_(li) is the Laplace domain uniform-flux solution for asingle fracture written to account for the effects of multiple fracturesas $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{D} \right)_{\ell\quad i} = {\frac{1}{2{sL}_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{- L_{f_{i}D}}^{L_{f_{i}D}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\left\lbrack {{r_{D}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - \alpha} \right\rbrack^{2} + {r_{D}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}15} \right)\end{matrix}$

The uniform-flux Laplace domain multiple fracture solution may now bewritten as $\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\frac{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}}{2L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{- L_{f_{i}D}}^{L_{f_{i}D}}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\left\lbrack {{r_{D}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - \alpha} \right\rbrack^{2} + {r_{D}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}}}\quad} & \left( {B\text{-}16} \right) \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,{n_{f}.}} & \quad\end{matrix}$

A semianalytical multiple arbitrarily-oriented infinite-conductivityfracture solution can be developed in the Laplace domain. If flux is notuniform along the fracture(s), a solution may be written usingsuperposition that accounts for the effects of multiple fractures as$\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\frac{1}{2L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{- L_{f_{i}D}}^{L_{f_{i}D}}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {\alpha,s} \right)}{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{r_{iD}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - \alpha} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{r_{iD}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}17} \right)\end{matrix}$where l=1,2, . . . , n_(f). If a point (r_(iD), θ_(i))is restricted to apoint along the i^(th) fracture axis, then the reference and fractureaxis are the same and Eq. B-7 results in{circumflex over (x)} _(eD) =r _(iD)cos(θ_(i)−θ_(i))=r _(iD) ,  (B-18)and the multiple fracture solution may be written as $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\frac{1}{2L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{- L_{f_{i}D}}^{L_{f_{i}D}}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {\alpha,s} \right)}{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{{\hat{x}}_{iD}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - \alpha} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{{\hat{x}}_{iD}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}{\mathbb{d}\alpha}}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}19} \right) \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{f}} & \quad\end{matrix}$

Assuming each fracture is homogeneous and symmetric, that is, q _(iD)(α,s)= q _(iD)(−α, s), the multiple infinite-conductivity fracture solutionfor an isotropic reservoir may be written as $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\frac{1}{2L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{0}^{L_{f_{i}D}}{{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {x^{\prime},s} \right)}\left\lbrack \quad\begin{matrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\overset{\_}{x}}_{iD} \right)^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} + x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{matrix} \right\rbrack}\quad{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}20} \right) \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{f}} & \quad\end{matrix}$

A semianalytical solution for the multiple infinite-conductivityfracture solution is obtained by dividing each fracture into n_(fs)equal segments of length, Δ{circumflex over (x)}_(iD)=L_(f,D)/n_(fs),and assuming constant flux in each segment. Although the number ofsegments in each fracture is the same, the segment length may bedifferent for each fracture, Δ{circumflex over (x)}_(iD)≠Δ{circumflexover (x)}_(jD). With the discretization, the multipleinfinite-conductivity fracture solution in the Laplace domain for anisotropic reservoir may be written as $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{n_{fs}}{\frac{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD} \right)m}{2L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{iD}\rbrack}_{m}}^{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{iD}\rbrack}_{m + 1}}{\begin{bmatrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} + x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}}} & \left( {B\text{-}21} \right) \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,{{n_{f}\quad{and}\quad j} = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{fs}} & \quad\end{matrix}$

A multiple infinite-conductivity fracture solution consideringpermeability anisotropy in an infinite slab reservoir is developed bydefining the dimensionless distance variables as presented by Ozkan, E.and Raghavan, R., New Solutions for Well-Test-Analysis Problems: Part1—Analytical Considerations, SPEFE, 359 (September 1991) as$\begin{matrix}{x_{D} = {\frac{x}{L}\sqrt{\frac{k}{k_{x}},}}} & \left( {B\text{-}22} \right) \\{{y_{D} = {\frac{y}{L}\sqrt{\frac{k}{k_{y}}}}},{and}} & \left( {B\text{-}23} \right) \\{k = {\sqrt{k_{x}k_{y}}.}} & \left( {B\text{-}24} \right)\end{matrix}$

The dimensionless variables rescale the anisotropic reservoir to anequivalent isotropic system. As a result of the resealing, thedimensionless fracture half-length changes and should be redefined aspresented by Spivey, J. P. and Lee, W. J., Estimating thePressure-Transient Response for a Horizontal or a HydraulicallyFractured Well at an Arbitrary Orientation in an Aniostropic Reservoir,SPE RESERVOIR EVAL. & ENG. (October 1999) as $\begin{matrix}{{L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime} = {\frac{L_{f_{i}}}{L}\sqrt{{\frac{k}{k_{x}}\cos^{2}\theta_{f}} + {\frac{k}{k_{y}}\sin^{2}\theta_{f}}}}},} & \left( {B\text{-}25} \right)\end{matrix}$where the angle of the fracture with respect to the rescaled XD-axis maybe written as $\begin{matrix}{{\theta_{f}^{\prime} = {\tan^{- 1}\left( {\sqrt{\frac{k_{x}}{k_{y}}}\tan\quad\theta_{f}} \right)}},{0 < \theta_{f} < {\frac{}{2}.}}} & \left( {B\text{-}26} \right)\end{matrix}$

When θ_(f)=0 or θ_(f)=π/2, the angle does not rescale and θ′_(f)=θ_(f).

With the redefined dimensionless variables, the multiplefinite-conductivity fracture solution considering permeabilityanisotropy may be written as $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\frac{1}{2\quad L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{0}^{L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime}}{{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {x^{\prime},s} \right)}\begin{bmatrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}} & \quad \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{f}} & \left( {B\text{-}27} \right)\end{matrix}$where the angle, θ′, is defined in the rescaled equivalent isotropicreservoir and is related to the anisotropic reservoir by $\begin{matrix}{\theta^{\prime} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}\theta & {\theta = 0} \\{\tan^{- 1}\left( \sqrt{\frac{k_{x}}{k_{y}}\tan\quad\theta} \right)} & {0 < \theta < {\text{/}2}} \\\theta & {\theta = {\text{/}2}}\end{matrix} \right.} & \left( {B\text{-}28} \right)\end{matrix}$

A semianalytical multiple arbitrarily-oriented infinite-conductivityfracture solution for an anisotropic reservoir may be written in theLaplace domain as $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{n_{fs}}{\frac{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD} \right)_{m}}{2\quad L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime}}{\int_{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{iD}\rbrack}_{m}}^{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{iD}\rbrack}_{m + 1}}{\begin{bmatrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}}} & \quad \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,{{n_{f}\quad{and}\quad j} = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{fs},} & \left( {B\text{-}29} \right)\end{matrix}$with the Laplace domain dimensionless total flow rate defined by$\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{iD}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{n_{fs}}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD} \right)_{m}}}} = \frac{1}{s}},} & \left( {B\text{-}30} \right)\end{matrix}$and an equation relating the dimensionless pressure at the well bore foreach fracture written as( p _(wD))₁+( p _(wD))₂= . . . =( p _(wD))_(nf) = p _(LfD)  (B-31)

For each fracture divided into n_(fs)f, equal length uniform-fluxsegments, Eqs. B-29 through B-31 describe a system of n_(f)n_(fs)+2equations and n_(f)n_(fs)+2 unknowns. Solving the system of equationsrequires writing an equation for each fracture segment, which isdemonstrated in below in Section V for multiple finite-conductivityfractures. The system of equations are solved in the Laplace domain andinverted to the time domain to obtain the dimensionless pressure usingthe Stehfest algorithm as presented by Stehfest, H., Numerical Inversionof Laplace Transforms, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 13, No. 1, 47-49(January 1970).

FIG. 5 contains a log-log graph of dimensionless pressure versusdimensionless time for a single infinite-conductivity fracture and agraph of the product of (1+δ_(L)) and dimensionless pressure for acruciform infinite-conductivity fracture where the angle between thefractures is π/2. In FIG. 5, the inset graphic illustrates a cruciformfracture with primary fracture half length, L_(fD), and the secondaryfracture half length is defined by the ratio of secondary to primaryfracture half length, δ_(L)=L_(f,D)/L_(f,D), where in FIG. 5, δ_(L)=1.FIG. 5 illustrates that at very early dimensionless times, all curvesoverlay, but as interference effects are observed in the cruciformfractures, the single and cruciform fracture solutions diverge.

V. Theoretical Model C—Analytical Pressure-Transient Solution for a WellContaining Multiple Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures in anInfinite Slab Reservoir

The development of a multiple finite-conductivity vertical fracturesolution requires writing a general solution for a finite-conductivityvertical fracture at any arbitrary angle, θ, from the x_(D)-axis. Thedevelopment then follows from the semi-analytical finite-conductivitysolutions of Cinco-L., H., Samaniego-V, F., and Dominguez-A, F.,Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-ConductivityVertical Fracture, SPEJ, 253 (August 1978) and, for the dual-porositycase, Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F., Transient Pressure Analysis:Finite Conductivity Fracture Case Versus Damage Fracture Case, SPE 10179(1981). FIG. 6 illustrates a vertical finite-conductivity fracture at anangle, θ, from the x_(D)-axis in an isotropic reservoir.

A finite-conductivity solution requires coupling reservoir andfracture-flow components, and the solution assumes

-   -   The fracture is modeled as a homogeneous slab porous medium with        fracture half-length, L_(f), fracture width, w_(f), and fully        penetrating across the entire reservoir thickness, h.    -   Fluid flow into the fracture is along the fracture length and no        flow enters through the fracture tips.    -   Fluid flow in the fracture is incompressible and steady by        virtue of the limited pore volume of the fracture relative to        the reservoir.    -   The fracture centerline is aligned with the {circumflex over        (x)}_(D)-axis, which is rotated by an angle, θ, from the        x_(D)-axis.

Cinco-L., H., Samaniego-V, F., and Dominguez-A, F., Transient PressureBehavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ,253 (August 1978) show that the Laplace domain pressure distribution ina finite-conductivity fracture may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{L_{f}D}(s)} - {{\overset{\_}{p}}_{D}\left( {{\hat{x}}_{D},s} \right)}} = {\frac{\quad{\hat{x}}_{D}}{s\quad C_{f\quad D}} - {\frac{}{C_{f\quad D}}{\int_{0}^{{\hat{x}}_{D}}{\int_{0}^{x^{\prime}}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{L_{f}D}\left( {x^{''},s} \right)}{\mathbb{d}x^{''}}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}}} & \left( {C\text{-}1} \right)\end{matrix}$where p _(D)({circumflex over (x)}_(D),s) is the general reservoirsolution and the dimensionless fracture conductivity is defined as,$\begin{matrix}{C_{f\quad D} = {\frac{k_{f}w_{f}}{k\quad L_{f}}.}} & \left( {C\text{-}2} \right)\end{matrix}$

With the definitions above in Section IV, the multiplearbitrarily-oriented finite-conductivity fracture solution is writtenfor a single fracture in the Laplace domain as presented by Craig, D.P., Analytical Modeling of a Fracture-Injection/Falloff Sequence and theDevelopment of a Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test, PhD dissertation,Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas (2005) as $\begin{matrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell} = {{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\frac{1}{2\quad L_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{0}^{L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime}}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {x^{\prime},s} \right)}\begin{bmatrix}{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} \\{{+ \left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)^{2}}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} \\{+ {K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right){\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} \\{{+ \left( {\hat{x}}_{iD} \right)^{2}}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell} - \theta_{i}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}}\end{bmatrix}}}}} + {{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}\frac{\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell D}}{s\quad C_{f_{i}D}}} - {\frac{}{C_{f_{i}D}}{\int_{0}^{{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}}{\int_{0}^{\hat{x}}{{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{iD}\left( {x^{''},s} \right)}{\mathbb{d}x^{''}}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}}} & \quad \\{{\ell = 1},2,\ldots\quad,n_{f}} & \left( {C\text{-}2} \right)\end{matrix}$

A semianalytical solution for the multiple finite-conductivity fracturesolution may be obtained with the discretization of both the reservoircomponent, which is described above in Section IV, and the fracture. Asshown by Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., F., Transient PressureAnalysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture Case Versus Damage Fracture Case,SPE 10179 (1981), the fracture-flow component, which may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\Psi = {\int_{0}^{{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}}{\int_{0}^{x^{\prime}}{{\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D}\quad\left( {x^{''},s} \right){\mathbb{d}x^{''}}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}},} & \left( {C\text{-}3} \right)\end{matrix}$may be approximated by $\begin{matrix}{\Psi_{j} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}{{\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{8}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j = 1}},{j = 1}} \\{{{\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{8}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j}(s)} + {\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{j - 1}{\begin{bmatrix}{\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{2} +} \\{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)\left\lbrack {\left( {\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j} - {m\quad\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{m}(s)}}},{j > 1}}\end{matrix} \right.} & \left( {C\text{-}4} \right)\end{matrix}$

By combining the reservoir and fracture-flow components-and includinganisotropy—a semianalytical multiple finite-conductivity fracturesolution may be written as $\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{\ell}(s)} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}{\begin{matrix}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{n_{fs}}{\frac{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{m}(s)}{2\quad L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime}}{\int_{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}\rbrack}_{m}}^{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}\rbrack}_{m + 1}}{\begin{bmatrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j = 1}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j = 1}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j = 1}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} + x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j = 1}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}} -} \\{{\frac{\pi}{C_{f_{i}D}}\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{8}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j = 1}(s)} + \frac{{\pi\left( {\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)}_{j = 1}}{s\quad C_{f_{i}D}}}\end{matrix},{j = 1}} \\{\begin{matrix}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{n_{fs}}{\frac{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{m}(s)}{2\quad L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime}}{\int_{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}\rbrack}_{m}}^{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}\rbrack}_{m + 1}}{\begin{bmatrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} + x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}}} -} \\{{\frac{\pi}{C_{f_{i}D}}\begin{bmatrix}{{\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{8}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j}(s)} +} \\{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{j - 1}{\left\lbrack {\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{2} + {\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)\left\lbrack {\left( {\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j} - {m\quad\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}}} \right\rbrack}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{m}(s)}}\end{bmatrix}} + \frac{{\pi\left( {\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)}_{j}}{s\quad C_{f_{i}D}}}\end{matrix},{j > 1}}\end{matrix} \right.} & \left( {C\text{-}5} \right)\end{matrix}$for j=1,2 . . . , n_(fs) and l=1,2, . . . , n_(f) with the Laplacedomain dimensionless total flow rate defined by $\begin{matrix}{{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n_{f}}{\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^{n_{fs}}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{m}}}} = \frac{1}{s}},} & \left( {C\text{-}6} \right)\end{matrix}$and a equation relating the dimensionless pressure at the well bore foreach fracture written as( p _(wD))₁+( p _(wD))₂= . . . =( p _(wD))_(nf) = p _(LfD)  (C-7)

For each fracture divided into n_(fs) equal length uniform-fluxsegments, Eqs. C-5 through C-7 describe a system of n_(f)n_(fs)+2equations and n_(f)n_(fs)+2 unknowns. Solving the system of equationsrequires writing an equation for each fracture segment. For exampleconsider the discretized cruciform fracture with each fracture wingdivided into three segments as shown in FIG. 7.

Define the following variables of substitution as $\begin{matrix}{\left( \zeta_{i} \right)_{mj} = {\frac{1}{2\quad L_{f_{i}D}^{\prime}}{\int_{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}\rbrack}_{m}}^{{\lbrack{\hat{x}}_{i\quad D}\rbrack}_{m + 1}}{\begin{bmatrix}{{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} - x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack} +} \\{K_{0}\left\lbrack {\sqrt{u}\sqrt{\begin{matrix}{\left\lbrack {{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}{\cos\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}} + x^{\prime}} \right\rbrack^{2} +} \\{\left( {\hat{x}}_{i\quad D} \right)_{j}^{2}{\sin^{2}\left( {\theta_{\ell}^{\prime} - \theta_{i}^{\prime}} \right)}}\end{matrix}}} \right\rbrack}\end{bmatrix}{\mathbb{d}x^{\prime}}}}}} & \left( {C\text{-}16} \right) \\{{\left( \chi_{\ell} \right)_{mj} = {\frac{\pi}{C_{f\quad\ell\quad D}}\left\lbrack {\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{2} + {\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)\left\lbrack {\left( {\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)_{j} - {m\quad\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}}} \right\rbrack}} \right\rbrack}},} & \left( {C\text{-}17} \right) \\{{\xi_{\ell} = {\frac{\pi}{C_{f\quad\ell\quad D}}\frac{\left( {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D}} \right)^{2}}{8}}},{and}} & \left( {C\text{-}18} \right) \\{\left( \eta_{\ell} \right)_{j} = {\frac{{\pi\left( {\hat{x}}_{\ell\quad D} \right)}_{j}}{C_{f\quad\ell\quad D}}.}} & \left( {C\text{-}19} \right)\end{matrix}$

For the cruciform fracture in an anisotropic reservoir illustrated inFIG. 7, the primary fracture is oriented at an angleθ_(f1)=θ′_(f1)=θ_(fr)=0 and the secondary fracture is oriented at anangle θ_(f2)=θ′_(f2)=π/2. Let the reference length be defined asL=L′_(f1), and let the length of the secondary fracture be defined asL′_(f2)=δ₂L′_(f1). Consequently, the dimensionless fracture half-lengthsare defined as L′_(f1D)=1, and L′_(f2D)=δ₂L′_(f1D)=δ₂.

Let j=1, and the dimensionless pressure equation for the primaryfracture may be written after collecting like terms as $\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{1} + \begin{bmatrix}{{\left\lbrack {\xi_{1} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{11}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{21}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{31}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}} -} \\{{\left( \quad\zeta_{\quad 2} \right)_{11}\left( \quad{\quad\overset{\quad\_}{q}}_{\quad{2\quad D}} \right)_{1}} - {\left( \quad\zeta_{\quad 2} \right)_{21}\left( \quad{\quad\overset{\quad\_}{q}}_{\quad{2\quad D}} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \quad\zeta_{\quad 2} \right)_{31}\left( \quad{\quad\overset{\quad\_}{q}}_{\quad{2\quad D}} \right)_{3}}}\end{bmatrix}} = \frac{\left( \eta_{1} \right)_{1}}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}20} \right)\end{matrix}$

For j=2, the dimensionless pressure equation may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{1} + \begin{bmatrix}{{\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{12} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{12}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}} + {\left\lbrack {\xi_{1} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{22}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}} -} \\{{\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{32}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}} - {\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{12}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{1}} -} \\{{\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{22}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{32}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{3}}}\end{bmatrix}} = \frac{\left( \eta_{1} \right)_{2}}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}21} \right)\end{matrix}$and for j=3, the dimensionless pressure equation may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{1} + \begin{bmatrix}{{\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{13} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{13}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}} + {\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{23} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{23}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}} +} \\{{\left\lbrack {\xi_{1} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{33}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}} - {\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{13}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{1}} -} \\{{\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{23}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{33}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{3}}}\end{bmatrix}} = \frac{\left( \eta_{1} \right)_{3}}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}22} \right)\end{matrix}$

The dimensionless pressure equation for the secondary fracture may bewritten for j=1 as $\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{2} + \begin{bmatrix}{{{- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{11}}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{21}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{31}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}}} \\{{\left\lbrack {\xi_{2} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{11}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{1}} - {\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{21}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{31}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{3}}}\end{bmatrix}} = \frac{\left( \eta_{2} \right)_{1}}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}23} \right)\end{matrix}$

For j=2, the dimensionless pressure equation for the secondary fracturemay be written as $\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{2} + \begin{bmatrix}{{{- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{12}}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{22}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{32}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}}} \\{{\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{2} \right)_{12} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{12}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{1}} + {\left\lbrack {\xi_{2} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{22}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{2}} -} \\{\left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{32}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{3}}\end{bmatrix}} = \frac{\left( \eta_{2} \right)_{2}}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}24} \right)\end{matrix}$and for j=3, the dimensionless pressure equation may be written as$\begin{matrix}{{\left( {\overset{\_}{p}}_{wD} \right)_{2} + \begin{bmatrix}{{{- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{13}}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{23}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}} - {\left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{33}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}}} \\{{\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{2} \right)_{13} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{13}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{1}} + {\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{2} \right)_{23} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{23}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{2}} +} \\{\left\lbrack {\xi_{2} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{33}} \right\rbrack\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{3}}\end{bmatrix}} = \frac{\left( \eta_{2} \right)_{3}}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}25} \right)\end{matrix}$

With the rate equation expanded and written as $\begin{matrix}{{{\Delta\quad{{\hat{x}}_{1\quad D}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)}_{1}} + {\Delta\quad{{\hat{x}}_{1\quad D}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)}_{2}} + {\Delta\quad{{\hat{x}}_{1\quad D}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)}_{3}} + {\Delta\quad{{\hat{x}}_{2\quad D}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)}_{1}} + {\Delta\quad{{\hat{x}}_{2\quad D}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)}_{2}} + {\Delta\quad{{\hat{x}}_{2\quad D}\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)}_{3}}} = \frac{1}{s}} & \left( {C\text{-}32} \right)\end{matrix}$and recognizing ( p _(wD))₁=( p _(wD))₂= p _(LfD), the linear system ofequations may also be written in matrix form asAx=b,  (C-33)where $\begin{matrix}{{A = \begin{bmatrix}A_{1} & Z_{2} & I \\Z_{2} & A_{2} & I \\\Delta_{1} & \Delta_{2} & 0\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}34} \right) \\{{A_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}\left\lbrack {\xi_{1} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{11}} \right\rbrack & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{21}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{31}} \\\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{12} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{12}} \right\rbrack & \left\lbrack {\xi_{1} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{22}} \right\rbrack & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{32}} \\\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{13} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{13}} \right\rbrack & \left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{23} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{23}} \right\rbrack & \left\lbrack {\xi_{1} - \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{33}} \right\rbrack\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}35} \right) \\{{A_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}\left\lbrack {\xi_{2} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{11}} \right\rbrack & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{21}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{31}} \\\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{2} \right)_{12} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{12}} \right\rbrack & \left\lbrack {\xi_{2} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{22}} \right\rbrack & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{32}} \\\left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{2} \right)_{13} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{13}} \right\rbrack & \left\lbrack {\left( \chi_{1} \right)_{23} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{23}} \right\rbrack & \left\lbrack {\xi_{2} - \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{33}} \right\rbrack\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}36} \right) \\{{Z_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}{- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{11}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{21}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{31}} \\{- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{12}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{22}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{32}} \\{- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{13}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{23}} & {- \left( \zeta_{1} \right)_{33}}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}37} \right) \\{{Z_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}{- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{11}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{21}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{31}} \\{- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{12}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{22}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{32}} \\{- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{13}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{23}} & {- \left( \zeta_{2} \right)_{33}}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}38} \right) \\{{I = \begin{bmatrix}1 \\1 \\1\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}39} \right) \\{{\Delta_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}{\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{1\quad D}} & {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{1\quad D}} & {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{1\quad D}}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}40} \right) \\{{\Delta_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}{\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{2\quad D}} & {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{2\quad D}} & {\Delta\quad{\hat{x}}_{2\quad D}}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}41} \right) \\{{x = \begin{bmatrix}q_{1} \\q_{2} \\{{\overset{\_}{p}}_{L_{f}D}(s)}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}42} \right) \\{{q_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{1}(s)} \\{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{2}(s)} \\{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{1\quad D} \right)_{3}(s)}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}43} \right) \\{{q_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{1}(s)} \\{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{2}(s)} \\{\left( {\overset{\_}{q}}_{2\quad D} \right)_{3}(s)}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}44} \right) \\{{b = \begin{bmatrix}b_{1} \\b_{2} \\{1/s}\end{bmatrix}},} & \left( {C\text{-}45} \right) \\{{b_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}\frac{\left( \eta_{1} \right)_{1}}{s} \\\frac{\left( \eta_{1} \right)_{2}}{s} \\\frac{\left( \eta_{1} \right)_{3}}{s}\end{bmatrix}},{and}} & \left( {C\text{-}46} \right) \\{b_{2} = {\begin{bmatrix}\frac{\left( \eta_{2} \right)_{1}}{s} \\\frac{\left( \eta_{2} \right)_{2}}{s} \\\frac{\left( \eta_{2} \right)_{3}}{s}\end{bmatrix}.}} & \left( {C\text{-}47} \right)\end{matrix}$

Craig, D. P., Analytical Modeling of a Fracture-Injection/FalloffSequence and the Development of a Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test,PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas (2005)demonstrates that the system of equations may also be written in ageneral form for n_(f) fractures with n_(fs) segments.

FIG. 8 contains a log-log graph of dimensionless pressure anddimensionless pressure derivative versus dimensionless time for acruciform fracture where the angle between the fractures is π/2. In FIG.8, δ_(L)=1, and the inset graphic illustrates a cruciform fracture withprimary fracture conductivity, C_(f1D), and the secondary fractureconductivity is defined by the ratio of secondary to primary fractureconductivity, δ_(C)=C_(f2D)/C_(f1D) where in FIG. 8, δ_(C)=1.

In addition to allowing each fracture to have a different half lengthand conductivity, the multiple fracture solution also allows for anarbitrary angle between fractures. FIG. 9 contains constant-rate typecurves for equal primary and secondary fracture half length, δ_(L)=1 andequal primary and secondary conductivity, δ_(C)=1 where C_(f1D)=100π.The type curves illustrate the effects of decreasing the angle betweenthe fractures as shown by type curves for θ_(f2)=π/2, π/4, and π/8.

VI. Nomenclature

The nomenclature, as used herein, refers to the following terms:

-   A=fracture area during propagation, L², m²-   A_(f)=fracture area, L², m²-   A_(ij)=matrix element, dimensionless-   B=formation volume factor, dimensionless-   c_(f)=compressibility of fluid in fracture, Lt²/m, Pa⁻¹-   c_(t)=total compressibility, Lt²/m, Pa⁻¹-   c_(wb)=compressibility of fluid in wellbore, Lt²/m, Pa⁻¹-   C=wellbore storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(f)=fracture conductivity, m³, m³-   C_(ac)=after-closure storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(bc)=before-closure storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(pf)=propagating-fracture storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(fbc)=before-closure fracture storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(pLf)=propagating-fracture storage with multiple fractures,    L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(Lfac)=after-closure multiple fracture storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   C_(Lfbc)=before-closure multiple fracture storage, L⁴t²/m, m³/Pa-   h=height, L, m-   h_(f)=fracture height, L, m-   I=integral, m/Lt, Pa·s-   k=permeability, L², m²-   k_(x)=permeability in x-direction, L², m²-   k_(y)=permeability in y-direction, L², m²-   K₀=modified Bessel function of the second kind (order zero),    dimensionless-   L=propagating fracture half length, L, m-   L_(f)=fracture half length, L, m-   n_(f)=number of fractures, dimensionless-   n_(fs)=number of fracture segments, dimensionless-   p₀=wellbore pressure at time zero, m/Lt², Pa-   p_(c)=fracture closure pressure, m/Lt², Pa-   p_(f)=reservoir pressure with production from a single fracture,    m/Lt², Pa-   p_(i)=average reservoir pressure, m/Lt², Pa-   P_(n)=fracture net pressure, m/Lt², Pa-   P_(w)=wellbore pressure, m/Lt², Pa-   P_(ac)=reservoir pressure with constant after-closure storage,    m/Lt², Pa-   p_(Lf)=reservoir pressure with production from multiple fractures,    m/Lt², Pa-   p_(pf)=reservoir pressure with a propagating fracture, m/Lt², Pa-   p_(wc)=wellbore pressure with constant flow rate, m/Lt², Pa-   P_(ws)=welibore pressure with variable flow rate, m/Lt², Pa-   P_(fac)=fracture pressure with constant after-closure fracture    storage, m/Lt², Pa-   p_(pLf)=reservoir pressure with a propagating secondary fracture,    m/Lt², Pa-   P_(Lfac)=reservoir pressure with production from multiple fractures    and constant after-closure storage, m/Lt², Pa-   p_(Ljbc)=reservoir pressure with production from multiple fractures    and constant before-closure storage, m/Lt², Pa-   q=reservoir flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q=fracture-face flux, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(w)=wellbore flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(l)=fluid leakoff rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(s)=reservoir flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(t)=total flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(f)=fracture flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(pf)=propagating-fracture flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(sf)=sand-face flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   q_(ws)=wellbore variable flow rate, L³/t, m³/s-   r=radius, L, m-   s=Laplace transform variable, dimensionless-   s_(e)=Laplace transform variable at the end of injection,    dimensionless-   S_(f)=fracture stiffness, m/L²t², Pa/m-   S_(fs)=fracture-face skin, dimensionless-   (S_(fs))_(ch)=choked-fracture skin, dimensionless-   t=time, t, s-   t_(e)=time at the end of an injection, t, s-   t_(c)=time at hydraulic fracture closure, t, s-   t_(LfD)=dimensionless time, dimensionless-   u=variable of substitution, dimensionless-   U_(a)=Unit-step fuinction, dimensionless-   V_(f)=fracture volume, L³, m³-   V_(fr)=residual fracture volume, L³, m³-   V_(w)=wellbore volume, L³, m³-   ŵ_(f)=average fracture width, L, m-   x=coordinate of point along x-axis, L, m-   {circumflex over (x)}=coordinate of point along {circumflex over    (x)}-axis, L, m-   x_(w)=wellbore position along x-axis, L, m-   y=coordinate of point along y-axis, L, m-   ŷ=coordinate of point along ŷ-axis, L, m-   y_(w)=wellbore position along y-axis, L, m-   α=fracture growth exponent, dimensionless-   δ_(L)=ratio of secondary to primary fracture half length,    dimensionless-   Δ=difference, dimensionless-   ζ=variable of substitution, dimensionless-   η=variable of substitution, dimensionless-   θ_(r)=reference angle, radians-   θ_(f)=fracture angle, radians-   μ=viscosity, m/Lt, Pa·s-   ξ=variable of substitution, dimensionless-   ρ=density, m/L³, kg/m³-   τ=variable of substitution, dimensionless-   φ=porosity, dimensionless-   χ=variable of substitution, dimensionless-   ψ=variable of substitution, dimensionless    Subscripts-   D=dimensionless-   i=fracture index, dimensionless-   j=segment index, dimensionless-   l=fracture index, dimensionless-   m=segment index, dimensionless-   n=time index, dimensionless

To facilitate a better understanding of the present invention, thefollowing examples of certain aspects of some embodiments are given. Inno way should the following examples be read to limit, or define, thescope of the invention.

EXAMPLES Field Example

A fracture-injection/falloff test in a layer without a pre-existingfracture is shown in FIG. 10, which contains a graph of injection rateand bottomhole pressure versus time. A 5.3 minute injection consisted of17.7 bbl of 2% KCl treated water followed by a 16 hour shut-in period.FIG. 11 contains a graph of equivalent constant-rate pressure andpressure derivative-plotted in terms of adjusted pseudovariables usingmethods such as those disclosed in Craig, D. P., Analytical Modeling ofa Fracture-Injection/Falloff Sequence and the Development of aRefracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test, PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ.,College Station, Texas (2005)-overlaying a constant-rate drawdown typecurve for a well producing from an infinite-conductivity verticalfracture with constant storage. Fracture half length is estimated to be127 ft using Nolte-Shlyapobersky analysis as disclosed in Correa, A. C.and Ramey, H. J., Jr., Combined Effects of Shut-In and Production:Solution With a New Inner Boundary Condition, SPE 15579 (1986) and thepermeability from a type curve match is 0.827 md, which agreesreasonably well with a permeability of 0.522 md estimated from asubsequent pressure buildup test type-curve match.

A refracture-candidate diagnostic test in a layer with a pre-existingfracture is shown in FIG. 12, which contains a graph of injection rateand bottomhole pressure versus time. Prior to the test, the layer wasfracture stimulated with 250,000 lbs of 20/40 proppant, but after 7days, the layer was producing below expectations and a diagnostic testwas used. The 18.5 minute injection consisted of 75.8 bbl of 2% KCltreated water followed by a 4 hour shut-in period. FIG. 13 contains agraph of equivalent constant-rate pressure and pressure derivativeversus shut-in time plotted in terms of adjusted pseudovariables usingmethods such as those disclosed in Craig, D. P., Analytical Modeling ofa Fracture-Injection/Falloff Sequence and the Development of aRefracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test, PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ.,College Station, Texas (2005) and exhibits the characteristic responseof a damaged fracture with choked-fracture skin. Note that thetransition from the first unit-slope line to the second unit slope linebegins at hydraulic fracture closure. Consequently, therefracture-candidate diagnostic test qualitatively indicates a damagedpre-existing fracture retaining residual width. Since the data did notextend beyond the end of storage, quantitative analysis is not possible.

Thus, the above results show, among other things:

-   -   An isolated-layer refracture-candidate diagnostic test may use a        small volume, low-rate injection of liquid or gas at a pressure        exceeding the fracture initiation and propagation pressure        followed by an extended shut-in period.    -   Provided the injection time is short relative to the reservoir        response, a refracture-candidate diagnostic may be analyzed as a        slug test.    -   A change in storage at fracture closure qualitatively may        indicate the presence of a pre-existing fracture. Apparent        increasing storage may indicate that the pre-existing fracture        is damaged.    -   Quantitative type-curve analysis using variable-storage,        constant-rate drawdown solutions for a reservoir producing from        multiple arbitrarily-oriented infinite or finite conductivity        fractures may be used to estimate fracture half length(s) and        reservoir transmissibility of a formation.

Therefore, the present invention is well adapted to attain the ends andadvantages mentioned as well as those that are inherent therein. Whilenumerous changes may be made by those skilled in the art, such changesare encompassed within the spirit of this invention as defined by theappended claims. The terms in the claims have their plain, ordinarymeaning unless otherwise explicitly and clearly defined by the patentee.

1. A method for determining a reservoir transmissibility of at least one layer of a subterranean formation having preexisting fractures having a reservoir fluid comprising the steps of: (a) isolating the at least one layer of the subterranean formation to be tested; (b) introducing an injection fluid into the at least one layer of the subterranean formation at an injection pressure exceeding the subterranean formation fracture pressure for an injection period; (c) shutting in the wellbore for a shut-in period; (d) measuring pressure falloff data from the subterranean formation during the injection period and during a subsequent shut-in period; and (e) determining quantitatively the reservoir transmissibility of the at least one layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing the pressure falloff data with a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein step (e) is accomplished by transforming the pressure falloff data to equivalent constant-rate pressures and using type curve analysis to match the equivalent constant-rate pressures to a type curve to determine quantitatively the reservoir transmissibility.
 3. The method of claim 1 wherein step (e) is accomplished by: transforming the pressure falloff data to obtain equivalent constant-rate pressures; preparing a log-log graph of the equivalent constant-rate pressures versus time; and determine quantitatively the reservoir transmissibility of the at least one layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing the variable-rate pressure falloff data using type-curve analysis according to the quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.
 4. The method of claim 2 wherein the reservoir fluid is compressible; and wherein the transforming of the pressure falloff data is based on the properties of the compressible reservoir fluid in the reservoir wherein the transforming step comprises: determining a shut-in time relative to the end of the injection period; determining an adjusted time; and determining an adjusted pseudopressure difference.
 5. The method of claim 4 wherein the transforming step comprises: determining the shut-in time relative to the end of the injection: At=t−t_(ne); determining the adjusted time: ${t_{a} = {\left( \overset{\_}{\mu\quad c_{t}} \right){\int_{0}^{\Delta\quad t}\frac{{\mathbb{d}\Delta}\quad t}{\left( {\mu\quad c_{t}} \right)_{w}}}}};$ and determining the adjusted pseudopressure difference: Δp_(a)(t)=P_(aw)(t)−P_(ai) where ${p_{a} = {\frac{{\overset{\_}{\mu}}_{g}\overset{\_}{z}}{p}{\int_{0}^{p}\frac{p{\mathbb{d}p}}{\mu_{g}z}}}};$ wherein: t_(ne) is the time at the end of the injection period; μ is the viscosity of the reservoir fluid at average reservoir pressure; (μc_(t))_(w) is the viscosity compressibility product of wellbore fluid at time t; (μc_(t))₀ is the viscosity compressibility product of wellbore fluid at time t=t_(ne); p is the pressure; p is the average reservoir pressure; p_(aw)(t) is the adjusted pressure at time t; p_(ai) is the adjusted pressure at time t=t_(ne); c_(t) is the total compressibility; c _(t) is the total compressibility at average reservoir pressure; and z is the real gas deviator factor.
 6. The method of claim 5 further comprising the step of preparing a log-log graph of a pressure function versus time: I(Δp_(a))=f(t_(a)), where I(Δ  p_(a)) = ∫₀^(a)Δ  p_(a)𝕕t_(a).
 7. The method of claim 5 further comprising the step of preparing a log-log graph of a pressure derivative function versus time: Δp_(a)′=f(t_(a)), where ${\Delta\quad p_{a}^{\prime}} = {\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p_{a}} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad t_{a}} \right)} = {\Delta\quad p_{a}{t_{a}.}}}$
 8. The method of claim 2 wherein the reservoir fluid is slightly compressible; and wherein the transforming of the pressure falloff data is based on the properties of the slightly compressible reservoir fluid in the reservoir wherein the transforming step comprise: determining a shut-in time relative to the end of the injection period; and determining a pressure difference; wherein: t_(ne) is the time at the end of the injection period; p_(w)(t) is the pressure at time t; and p_(i) is the initial pressure at time t=t_(ne).
 9. The method of claim 8 wherein the transforming step comprises: determining the shut-in time relative to the end of the injection: Δt=t−t_(ne); and determining the pressure difference: Δp(t)=p_(w)(t)−p_(i); wherein: t_(ne) is the time at the end of the injection period; p_(w)(t) is the pressure at time t; and p_(i) is the initial pressure at time t=t_(ne).
 10. The method of claim 8 further comprising the step of plotting a log-log graph of a pressure function versus time: I(Δp)=f(Δt).
 11. The method of claim 9 where I(Δ  p) = ∫₀^(Δ  t)Δ  p𝕕Δ  t  or  ∫₀^(t)Δ  p𝕕t.
 12. The method of claim 8 further comprising the step of plotting a log-log graph of a pressure derivatives function versus time: Δp′=f(Δt).
 13. The method of claim 12 where ${\Delta\quad p^{\prime}} = {\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad\Delta\quad t} \right)} = {{\Delta\quad p\quad\Delta\quad t\quad{or}\quad\frac{\mathbb{d}\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)}{\mathbb{d}\left( {\ln\quad t} \right)}} = {\Delta\quad p\quad{t.}}}}$
 14. The method of claim 9 wherein the reservoir transmissibility is determined quantitatively in field units from a before-closure match point as: $\frac{kh}{\mu} = {141.2(24){p_{wsD}(0)}{{{C_{Lfbc}\left( {p_{0} - p_{i}} \right)}\left\lbrack \frac{p_{LfbcD}\left( t_{D} \right)}{I\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)} \right\rbrack}_{M}.}}$
 15. The method of claim 9 wherein the reservoir transmissibility is determined quantitatively in field units from an after-closure match point as: $\frac{kh}{\mu} = {141.2{(24)\begin{bmatrix} {{p_{wsD}(0)}C_{Lfbc}} \\ {- {p_{wsD}\left( {\left( t_{c} \right)_{Lfd}\left\lbrack {C_{Lfbc} - C_{Lfac}} \right\rbrack} \right.}} \end{bmatrix}}{{\left( {p_{0} - p_{i}} \right)\left\lbrack \frac{p_{LfacD}\left( t_{D} \right)}{I\left( {\Delta\quad p} \right)} \right\rbrack}_{M}.}}$
 16. The method of claim 5 wherein the injection fluid is compressible and contains desirable additives for compatibility with the subterranean formation wherein the reservoir transmissibility is determined quantitatively in field units from a before-closure match point as: $\frac{kh}{\mu} = {141.2(24){p_{awsD}(0)}{{{C_{Lfbc}\left( {p_{a\quad 0} - p_{ai}} \right)}\left\lbrack \frac{p_{LfbcD}\left( t_{D} \right)}{I\left( {\Delta\quad p_{a}} \right)} \right\rbrack}_{M}.}}$
 17. The method of claim 5 wherein the injection fluid is compressible and contains desirable additives for compatibility with the subterranean formation wherein the reservoir transmissibility is determined quantitatively in field units from an after-closure match point as: $\frac{kh}{\mu} = {141.2{(24)\begin{bmatrix} {{p_{awsD}(0)}C_{Lfbc}} \\ {- {{p_{awsD}\left( \left( t_{c} \right)_{Lfd} \right)}\left\lbrack {C_{\quad{Lfbc}} - C_{\quad{Lfac}}} \right\rbrack}} \end{bmatrix}}{{\left( {p_{a\quad 0} - p_{ai}} \right)\left\lbrack \frac{p_{LfacD}\left( t_{D} \right)}{I\left( {\Delta\quad p_{a}} \right)} \right\rbrack}_{M}.}}$
 18. A system for determining a reservoir transmissibility of at least one layer of a subterranean formation by using variable-rate pressure falloff data from the at least one layer of the subterranean formation measured during an injection period and during a subsequent shut-in period, the system comprising: a plurality of pressure sensors for measuring pressure falloff data; and a processor operable to transform the pressure falloff data to obtain equivalent constant-rate pressures and to determine quantitatively the reservoir transmissibility of the at least one layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing the variable-rate pressure falloff data using type-curve analysis according to a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.
 19. A computer program, stored on a tangible storage medium, for analyzing at least one downhole property, the program comprising executable instructions that cause a computer to: determine quantitatively a reservoir transmissibility of the at least one layer of the subterranean formation by analyzing the variable-rate pressure falloff data with a quantitative refracture-candidate diagnostic model.
 20. The computer program of claim 19 wherein the determining step is accomplished by transforming the variable-rate pressure falloff data to equivalent constant-rate pressures and using type curve analysis to match the equivalent constant-rate rate pressures to a type curve to determine quantitatively the reservoir transmissibility.
 21. The computer program of claim 19 wherein the determining step is accomplished by transforming the variable-rate pressure falloff data to equivalent constant-rate pressures and using after closure analysis to determine quantitatively the reservoir transmissibility. 